The show followed the heart-wrenching stories of many families and children living across the United States and Africa

Although the performances were entertaining the travels shown by Annie Lennox and Alicia Keys brought tears to the eyes of those who watched and as ever, caused many to question why billions are being spent on wars across the world, when they could be used to repair many communities.

Some may question how this would matter to them, but as Alicia Keys mentions in the show, this could be the generation to prevent the suffering.

Many say that governments of the United States and United Kingdom should divert the troops money being used for war and killing people, to saving the lives of those suffering from HIV and poverty.

The show aims to raise $100 million from donations and downloads of the performances on the night where all proceedings go to six chosen charities.

Feel free to comment, do you think the people in charge have got their priorities wrong?

Thomas Beatie who was once a woman is 5 months pregnant and expecting a baby girl this July. The Oregon, USA resident went through a sex change reconstructing only his chest and altering his testosterone therapy. He became pregnant after Beatie underwent artificial insemination.

Thomas and his wife Nancy decided to have a baby, but Nancy was unable to carry become pregnant after she went through a hysterectomy due to severe endometriosis 20 years ago.

“I stopped taking my bimonthly testosterone injections. It had been roughly eight years since I had my last menstrual cycle, so this wasn’t a decision that I took lightly,” Beatie said in an article for ‘The Advocate’ magazine.

Beatie felt that many doctors were against his decision to carry the baby because of their religious rights. Do you think this is playing with nature? Or do Thomas and Nancy Beatie have every right to conceive a baby in this unusual manner?

The newly opened Luthan Hotel in Saudi Arabia enables women to stay in a hotel without a male to accompany them. The kingdom’s first hotel provides services to women where they can be pampered without judging eyes of a man.

Laws in Saudi Arabia strictly prohibit a women from driving, testifying in court unless a male was present, travelling alone without written permission and all women are required to cover their bodies from head to toe.

The recently opened hotel is owned by a group of 20 Saudi princesses and businesswomen and is completely run by women. From the electricians to the ‘bellwomen’, every service offered within the hotel is provided by women.

Many have argued that the UN should discuss the treatment of women within the country as a large number of women are forced to hide in fear if they are attacked, abused or raped as their testimony in court would not be liable if not backed by a male.

The issue of female segregation is a sensitive one when considering a strongly devout Muslim country, but should other countries interfere to stop the gender apartheid?

Is the Luthan Hotel a step forward or just another way to pull women away from society and deny them their freedom?

18 March 2008 will see the hearing of the what is being considered the most important case regarding firearms in the last decade. The United States supreme court will begin to reconsider whether American citizens will have to right to legally own a personal gun. This will be the first questioning of gun handling in the US for over 70 years, and so the final decision made by the court will have a huge impact on the American society whatever the decision.

Many questions have been raised on the possible decisions and paths that the court may take. Will the court decide on a new method of gun control? Or will they decide entirely to ban the possession of personal firearms? In order for the latter to be properly implemented will the government be required to issue a strict sentence on those who do not submit their arms within a given time?

Issues are raised for those who may potentially abide to the rules in that they then become vulnerable to social crimes. As many have argued, a family may not be able to protect themselves against those who may still illegally possess a gun. In order for the ban to work it seem as though it will cost the American government a lot of money and time, but how willing will they be to invest both into the proposal?

The biggest argument against the ban of firearms comes from many families wishing to protect themselves against any potential danger. As part of the constitutional rights of American citizens they are in fact entitled to possess a gun.

Statistics produced by the UK-based Gun Control Network have shown that approximately 4 in every 100,000 citizens of America were killed by guns compared to the 0.15 in England and Wales. It is because of these reasons that the high court have decided to reconsider the law after so many years.

President of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke said:

“The only thing that hurts our efforts is if it’s and extreme decision that says you can’t have any limits, anytime, anywhere. But anything short of that – that basically allows reasonable restrictions…I think could help the gun control movement.”

Former PM Tony Blair is set to lead an international team which aims to target climate change. Blair is aiming to prepare a agreement which will encourage countries to cut their carbon emissions by 50% by 2050. The main countries he aims to reach out to is The United States of America and China.

Although the article portrays the ex PM to be the newest hero to save the world, it does make one question his seriousness in the issue, is Blair all talk or will he attempt to redeem his reputation. Either way, Blair does have the backing of the White House, the UN and Europe, including Gordon Brown.

In the Interview with The Guardian, Blair appears to be determined to create a plan of action, and not just a written report of what should happen.

It is evident that countries such as China and India will not reduce consumation substantially as their aim is to expand their economies. So what is it Blair can put to the table to such aspiring and expanding countries?

The UN will be required to provide a new climate change proposition by the end of 2008.

The government has announced that more than 1,400 rejected Iraqi asylum seekers are required to return to Iraq or face destitution in the UK.The decision was made by home secretary, Jacqui smith who had declared it was satisfactory to declare Iraq as safe to send asylum seekers back to Iraq.This decision was made after it was found that 78 people had been killed in Iraq since last Sunday. United Nations high commissioner for refugeesIraqis involved were told that if they failed to return to Iraq they would face destitution within the UK. Asylum seekers were also told that they would be asked to sign a waiver agreeing that the British government will take no responsibilty for what happens to them or their families once they return to Iraqi territory

In short, the government plan to starve the Iraqi people into returning to Iraq.

The Guardian have made a point within this article to express the fact that it seems as though the British government are either incredibly stupid, or very heartless. The latter probably being the closest to the truth.

It is clear to see from the Iraq reports on The Guardian that the situation in Iraq is far from safe and yet the Government are still persisting on using the British public’s taxes to fund a war that isn’t justified. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, Sadam is gone. So why are there still troops in Iraq? It isn’t up to the British and American governments to ‘save’ Iraq if they aren’t applying their methods all over the world. If they believe they are trying to rebuild the civilisation why weren’t they in Kenya controlling the chaos?

The Guardian has recently begun to follow a special report on environmental issues surrounding recent news. The report sees two of the EU’s senior foreign policy officers stating that Europe will be expecting a rise in a new type of immigrants.

It was said that within a decade “there will be millions of environmental migrants with climate change as one of the major drivers of this phenomenon”.

In retrospect England has come a long way with regards to sustainability over the last 5 years. It is evident to anyone that global warming awareness has increased hugely within our nation, particularly with regards to reducing our ‘Carbon footprint’. The question is however, is is this making a difference?

The report within the guardian states that the countries that have become badly hit by the effects of global warming are demanding that the ‘new phenomenon’ be recognised as a valid reason for migration.

(It is interesting that the Guardian have branded the phenomenon as new when it clearly is not. However, accepting that climate change exists is new)

The report is a very interesting read however it does seem as though the the British media wrongly referring to global warming as a ‘future problem’. If migration is already growing at a rapid rate and the number of natural disasters are swelling, It could be argued that the future has arrived.

The effects of global warming are evidently being ignored more so in the countries that are contributing the most carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Countries such as the United states, Japan, China and Great Britain as these countries have not been affected has harshly as some others and it seems the realisation will not set in until more disasters take place.

Excessive imigration is one of the seven ‘threats’ caused by climate change that the officials have focused on whilst particularly highlighting the security issues that could arise. The report was presented to the EU sumit on 13 March 2008 with an aim to provide a wake up call to the governments of europe. Officials are aiming to make the european governments realise that initially the effects of global warming will hit countries far from europe, however, eventually europe will begin to feel the impact of the disasters.